In Light of the Rittenhouse Verdict... A Question

What if neither one had fired a shot and just pointed their firearm at one another. Both can claim self defense right?
 
Start a fight, so up front known as the aggressor in a case? Not something a defense attorney would appreciate. Remember, defense attorneys very often work for kickbacks. It's not unheard of for an attorney to intentionally lose your case for you (:
 
Hello leaningright,

So it’s always been the way you describe in the OP. The burden of proof is on the survivor. Maybe?

I’m pretty sure if you go into a bar and “pick a fight” there will be witnesses naming you as the aggressor.

Isn't it usually the person who swings at or pushes the other person first?

Meaning: anything merely said does not count. What counts is getting physical.
 
What if neither one had fired a shot and just pointed their firearm at one another. Both can claim self defense right?

Holding a gun on someone who wasn't in the act of committing a serious crime or was probably guilty of a serious crime, is ~ an assault with a deadly weapon.

Another good rule of thumb, don't point your gun at anyone unless you're shooting them.
 
If a person was breaking into your house, would you be allowed to shoot him before knowing if he was armed?

In most states, yes. Even saw a case of a guy killing his estranged wife and her sister after they broke into his house and knowing full well they weren't armed.

Breaking and entering (felony) and knowing they were hostile is plenty.

Life, liberty, and property, can all be defended with lethal force.

Check your state for castle doctrin.
 
Last edited:
Public property. And there are serious concerns the occupants were committing a crime.


This is indefensible.

Breaking and entering is a crime no matter what property it's being committed on. If the rioters had acted like decent individuals instead of lawless vandals screaming "hang Mike Pence," there wouldn't have been a problem.
 
Back
Top